RMS's intent regarding what constitutes a derivative work doesn't really mean all that much in the event that a court disagrees. That's still an if as far as I know.
And really, how else are we supposed to interpret 2.b?
I won't argue about whether that is restrictive or not, as that is largely a point of view thing, but it certainly has implications for someone who reads some GPL code and gets an idea from it.
Right, but it isn't clear (to me) that a person can view GPL code without giving up similar rights (because the GPL demands that derivatives be GPL licensed).
So even if you come across some code and look at it before realizing it is GPL...
Compartmentalization is just as much a problem when viewing GPL code. Viewing GPL code doesn't have any implications if you plan on releasing GPL code, but if you have some desire to release code that is not GPL, it seems to me that you need to be pretty careful about what GPL code you look at or you won't be able to cleanly separate what you are remembering from what you are creating (with the notion that something you remembered would probably be a derivative and thus should be subject to the terms of the GPL).
It's not really a flaw of the licenses, viewing any code (except code that has extremely liberal reuse provisions, BSD, artistic licenses, etc.) has contamination implications.
Without arguing about your point, how many people that are willing to take and close BSD are going to end up willing to use and contribute back to GPL?
There is probably some intersection, but the existence of BSD options is going to keep that intersection pretty small. So in the end, the GPL probably does more to limit lock-in use of the code (which is fine, I think an author has every right to do such a thing) than in does to encourage flow-back of innovation from selfish borrowers.
Is the stuff you do on every single system you use really that important?
I can see being very careful with systems that are used for a wide range of tasks, but the desktop machine with nightly backups that you use to draft documents doesn't seem like it is going to be so important that you need to inspect all binaries. Most people use computers for stuff that is even less important than that.
"ipods" is certainly a fair interpretation, but there was some intent to allude to anything with a high value to weight ratio.
As a rhetorical question (so I don't expect you to have an answer or point me in the direction of one), it would be interesting to see breakdowns of what gets shipped by sea and what gets shipped by air, by volume, mass and dollars.
XML was designed to make it easier to work with structured data by making tools more reusable. In situations where it doesn't make sense, it's just as terrible a wire format as it is a data format.
The relative cheapness of computers today means that you can develop very purpose specific software and then switch over to it. When computers were expensive, you didn't have a computer to develop purpose specific software with, so you only used software where it really made sense.
Modern man probably arose ~200,000 years ago, not several million.
The relatively rapid success of modern man in populating the planet is good reason to believe that there was more than a software change 200,000 years ago (and it took about 190,000 years after that change before agriculture became a force and culture exploded).
I doubt that there is all that much transpacific shipping where lowering inventories is worth the difference in shipping costs, but its pure speculation on my part, I have no idea what the relative costs are.
It depends an awful lot on how their costs break down.
If fuel costs are the majority of the cost of shipping something by air, sure. If air fuel costs are only 30 or 40 percent of the total cost (handling, pilots, trucks, gas for trucks, drivers), then the zeppelin service is only going to be able to offer a 25-40% reduction in price, in exchange for a factor of 5 or 10 (or worse) reduction in delivery speed.
It's a verb tense thing. The Hindenburg isn't flying anymore, so when you talk about airships that are flying, you don't need to include the Hindenburg, because it isn't flying anymore.
"Freight" doesn't go by plane. Some desirable foodstuffs and trinkets might get shipped by air, but everything else gets stuck on a ship.
The ship has better fuel economy per unit weight than a car to the point that driving a few dozen pounds of goods 2 miles home from the store costs more than shipping stuff from China to California.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have the same rights. Among many other things, they are disenfranchised.
Guess what he is going to do once he drops out.
RMS's intent regarding what constitutes a derivative work doesn't really mean all that much in the event that a court disagrees. That's still an if as far as I know.
And really, how else are we supposed to interpret 2.b?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
I won't argue about whether that is restrictive or not, as that is largely a point of view thing, but it certainly has implications for someone who reads some GPL code and gets an idea from it.
What are you talking about? There are very few nut jobs running around kidnapping children of any age.
Quick, name the last abduction in your area that was not done by a parent or other family member. No looking it up, you have to remember it.
7 people with legitimate uses and 200,000 spazzes does not "we" make.
You don't mean free minutes, you mean minutes that you pay for regardless of whether you use them or not. They're anything but free.
Right, but it isn't clear (to me) that a person can view GPL code without giving up similar rights (because the GPL demands that derivatives be GPL licensed).
So even if you come across some code and look at it before realizing it is GPL...
Compartmentalization is just as much a problem when viewing GPL code. Viewing GPL code doesn't have any implications if you plan on releasing GPL code, but if you have some desire to release code that is not GPL, it seems to me that you need to be pretty careful about what GPL code you look at or you won't be able to cleanly separate what you are remembering from what you are creating (with the notion that something you remembered would probably be a derivative and thus should be subject to the terms of the GPL).
It's not really a flaw of the licenses, viewing any code (except code that has extremely liberal reuse provisions, BSD, artistic licenses, etc.) has contamination implications.
Without arguing about your point, how many people that are willing to take and close BSD are going to end up willing to use and contribute back to GPL?
There is probably some intersection, but the existence of BSD options is going to keep that intersection pretty small. So in the end, the GPL probably does more to limit lock-in use of the code (which is fine, I think an author has every right to do such a thing) than in does to encourage flow-back of innovation from selfish borrowers.
It's a bit of a stretch to call this the most critical of situations.
Also, I believe that PromiscuOS is somewhat less secure than Windows.
Copy, THIS, Floppy.
I like the "how do I make more people aware of my project" vs "I don't want you thousands of people to be aware of my project" juxtaposition.
It almost had to be intentional. It probably wasn't, but almost.
Is the stuff you do on every single system you use really that important?
I can see being very careful with systems that are used for a wide range of tasks, but the desktop machine with nightly backups that you use to draft documents doesn't seem like it is going to be so important that you need to inspect all binaries. Most people use computers for stuff that is even less important than that.
"ipods" is certainly a fair interpretation, but there was some intent to allude to anything with a high value to weight ratio.
As a rhetorical question (so I don't expect you to have an answer or point me in the direction of one), it would be interesting to see breakdowns of what gets shipped by sea and what gets shipped by air, by volume, mass and dollars.
XML was designed to make it easier to work with structured data by making tools more reusable. In situations where it doesn't make sense, it's just as terrible a wire format as it is a data format.
The NSA themselves:
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm
Point to an executive order:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.12
The relative cheapness of computers today means that you can develop very purpose specific software and then switch over to it. When computers were expensive, you didn't have a computer to develop purpose specific software with, so you only used software where it really made sense.
Modern man probably arose ~200,000 years ago, not several million.
The relatively rapid success of modern man in populating the planet is good reason to believe that there was more than a software change 200,000 years ago (and it took about 190,000 years after that change before agriculture became a force and culture exploded).
"desirable trinkets"
I doubt that there is all that much transpacific shipping where lowering inventories is worth the difference in shipping costs, but its pure speculation on my part, I have no idea what the relative costs are.
O.k., poor wording, but read that link, there is an executive order directing the Secretary of Defense to utilize the NSA to gather intelligence.
It depends an awful lot on how their costs break down.
If fuel costs are the majority of the cost of shipping something by air, sure. If air fuel costs are only 30 or 40 percent of the total cost (handling, pilots, trucks, gas for trucks, drivers), then the zeppelin service is only going to be able to offer a 25-40% reduction in price, in exchange for a factor of 5 or 10 (or worse) reduction in delivery speed.
The NSA is a tool for use by the Secretary of Defense:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#1.12
About half of the people that work for the NSA are military.
Dumbledore?
It's a verb tense thing. The Hindenburg isn't flying anymore, so when you talk about airships that are flying, you don't need to include the Hindenburg, because it isn't flying anymore.
"Freight" doesn't go by plane. Some desirable foodstuffs and trinkets might get shipped by air, but everything else gets stuck on a ship.
The ship has better fuel economy per unit weight than a car to the point that driving a few dozen pounds of goods 2 miles home from the store costs more than shipping stuff from China to California.